Note to Little Miss Attila. Not everyone who voted for Obama voted for him for the simple stereotypical reason you keep in your head. If you want to know why I actually voted for Obama, read "How McCain Lost Me." The bottom line was:

1. [McCain] did not understand economics, the most important issue.

2. He lost the ability to make the experience argument [when he picked Sarah Palin for VP].

3. He never defined himself as a principled conservative.

4. Erratic and incoherent, he lacked sufficient mental capacity.

I'm not happy with the job Obama is doing, but it could be a lot worse, and what McCain would have done is something we will never get to see. I won't accuse you of succumbing to a cult of personality if you are imagining some wonderful McCain presidency that would have been, but you can't compare that what never happened to what is happening now.

In the end, we were stuck choosing between 2 far from perfect men, and I voted for Obama without being caught up in any sort of giddy emotionalism.

364 comments:

The idea that certain people need to bear some sort of psychological burden for the choice they made in an election is waaaaay over the top. As my mom always says, you just hold your nose and vote for the one that stinks less.

I don't think you need to get too defensive about voting for and supporting obama. Look, in the end these things are very subjective. i am still not convinced that Mccain would have been much better. In other words, Obama is a disaster, but that's not the same as saying mccain would have been good.

It all goes to show that we really need to pick presidents with significant administrative backgrounds. That should be the first question before we talk policy. McCain had Obama beat in that category, but not by much.

This analysis of the two candidates' skill sets is correct. Yet in the end a very talented enemy 5th columnist is a disaster compared to a limited in talent friend. This society got used to two parties offering pro-american leadership with a differing set of economic pie cutting visions. We had never before run into an imposter that was sent to to us destroy the American dominance in the world. We sholud have listened to Zell Miller tell about the "Democrats" bought and paid for by international money that are determined to end the American super power status so they can get back to stealing money.

The real choice in the '08 election was not between McCain and Obama. It was between Hillary and Obama and the fact that Republicans like Noonan and you failed to recognize it early on and played along with the corrupt Dems or got played by them says everything. Have you, Hillary haters, missed her yet? We don't ever know how she would have governed but it would have been a lot better than Obama. If the Dems had played their cards right, they could have had both of them and Obama would have had more experience but of course, that reasoning is too normal and too rational for the corrupt political world. No, it was not the cult of personality(that was reserved for the college kids) but stupidity.

As AllenS adroitly demonstrates, if you take the reasons you give for voting for Obama, and judge Obama's (fully predictable) performance against them, well... they certainly don't make you look any less fooled by Obama's act than the full-fledged members of his cult.

It just makes you (as Fen implies) better at coming up with rationalizations for voting with your heart instead of your head.

And McCain would have been OK with a placeholder kind of presidency without upsetting too much of the apple cart. He does not have the corrupt brains to fuck it up like Obama is doing now. As a Dem, even I knew that.

True. Hillary would have done better; not just because she is smarter than any of them, but because her survival and the conservation of her gains would depend on the nation's survival, and she recognizes that.

That, with the Clintons, it is all about them, is not necessarily all bad for the rest of us.

Yes, McCain probably would have been a mediocre President, but anyone who seriously examined Obama's background, associates, and beliefs could easily figure out that Obama intended to be an utterly transformative President - and not in a good way for anyone who cherishes freedom and independence from the stifling embrace of the State.

My only hope was that given Obama's manifest lack of experience, that he wouldn't be especially competent at pushing his agenda. To an extent that's been true, but that doesn't mean that he can't still do a lot more damage. Obama's had a pretty easy ride so far on foreign policy issues, but our enemies smell weakness, and I think that the Rev. Wright's chickens are soon going to be coming home to roost.

In the end the correct deciding factors were: the people Obama trusted and would bring into power with him, all big government and way left; Obama's actual voting record, again big government and leftist; the danger of handing one party unfettered control of the government and the number of basic principles where what Obama "knows" is flat out wrong.

Obama's a bust. McCain probably would have been, too. After all, he's only dumped the open borders crap within the past month.

McCain signed onto the bailouts. He lost me then. I voted for him, while holding my nose.

I knew what Obama was... and is. Let me spell it out for you, since I'm originally from Chicago.

The Daley and Jesse Jackson machines fought a turf war for two decades over political spoils. One day, the light turned on: What if we join forces? Then we can continue to plunder the system in the old fashioned Irish/Mafia way, and we can plunder the system employing the new racial quota/corporate shakedown way.

All that was needed was a black face with a spotless, shiny resume... Barack Obama!

The political system has descended in nightmarish corruption on both sides. Both sides have their hands deep in the shit of the mortgage debacle... and that crime was committed in the name of Diversity!!

Screaming "racism" and "bigotry" is immensely profitable. As you can see, we still have a lot of suckers out there (including a bunch on this board) who don't understand how they are being played by that scam.

The best we can expect from politicians is to limit their power grabs and their plans to steal us blind.

Not much, I know... we all wish something better were available. It ain't.

wv: halato = the stench that ensues from the combination of halitosis and halo preening that soils the current political landscape, including this board.

It seems like you were betting on the come. Sometimes that doesn't work out so well. The way I see it, you don't need to apologize for your vote or your support. What you need to do is hold Obama accountable for his many idiocies. From what I can tell, that's what you are doing.

I voted for McCain even though he was the worst possible candidate for the Republicans. But I was a bit suspicious of a man who had written two autobiographies before he was fifty but who hadn't shared much of his writing or any of his grades. I found that an odd bit of modesty given his obvious hubris. Unhappily I was right. I say unhappily because like most of my friends on the right I wanted him to succeed at leading the country and I was willing to put up with some obviously onerous policies to see that happen. I was not prepared, in my most cynical moments, to see what I have seen. Nor, I might add, were most of my conservative friends who are moving from appalled to infuriated. His lack of executive experience, so profound and so maddening to the anti-Palin crowd, was a matter we should not have ignored.

I have to say, Ann, that your "reasons" for voting Obama sound a lot like rationalizations after the fact.

At no time did Obama display any real understanding of economics; Palin was, in fact, more experienced than Obama and was not running for the presidency; there was no "principled conservative" [whatever that is] in the race; and, granting the fact that McCain was often erratic and incoherent in his speech, the same could be said of many of our presidents and could easily be seen as evidence that McCain, unlike his opponent, was not committed to an ideological agenda.

Granted there were no compelling reasons for supporting McCain -- but none of your stated reasons constitute compelling rational arguments for voting against him. It would appear that your choice, like that of nearly all voters, was based far more in emotional than rational factors.

One of the hardest things for most of us to admit is when we are wrong. Maybe, your evaluation and analysis were just incorrect. Maybe, millions of Obama supporters were caught up in a mania and didn't realize it.

Your reasoning for voting for Obama over McCain is illogical. To suggest that you would vote for the most liberal member of the US Senate because the Republican candidate wasn't conservative enough doesn't pass the smell test. Did you think that the most liberal Senator in the US would be more conservative than a Republican candidate for president? Yes, McCain was a flawed candidate but it was obvious to any conservative that Obama would be a disaster of epic proportions and he has not proven us wrong. Why can't you admit that you let emotion, not logic, sway you into making a poor choice?

This is a pretty good defense by Ann, and I find it hard to disagree with her four summary points.

She also makes a good point that in these type of discussions, you cannot tell what the consequence (in this case, how bad) of the selecting the other choice would have been. The same point applies, but is seldom made, with respect to the Iraq War -- what would have happened if Sadaam and this sons were left in power.

I tend to think McCain would not have been a good president, for many of the reasons listed by Ann. My only hesitationis that high smarts (and I'm not sure Obama is all that smart) do not necessarily make a good president. McCain is one politician who has some moments of significant personal virtue in his life (few do, including Obama) that might have forecast a president willing to do the right thing. I still think that if McCain had been smart enough (or virtuous enough) to take a one term pledge he might have been elected.

Back to Ann, she does protest a little too much. She obviously was taken with Obama, e.g., his "elegant long fingers" and youthful image.

Obviously, not, but we are now given a great opportunity to make the distinctions and get conservatives to define and promote conservatism. We're getting some clarity. Fast. I like that. The Democrats are making it clear what they stand for and how they do things. If McCain were in there, getting along with Congress, it would all be a big mush.

The racial and sexual quota system has hopelessly corrupted every level of government. Obama and McCain are both in agreement here.

The racial and sexual quota system is the perfect scam. You can't challenge it because it's based on a pretense of sainted concern for the "oppressed."

In practice, it's a license to steal.

You can't challenge open borders because that makes you a bigot. You can't challenge the bailouts over the mortgage mess, because the stealing was carried out for the great Diversity crusade.

The racial and sexual quota system has become a massive shakedown apparatus that completely excludes the voters, by labeling them as bigots who are too dangerous to be entrusted with any relevant political issue.

Obama was chosen by the Daley machine, in its merger with the Jesse Jackson shakedown machine, as a clean hands figurehead in this classic shakedown.

And, now, if you oppose this institutionalized system of ripoffs and shakedowns, you're a "racist."

The two parties have joined together, under the great flag of Diversity, to rip us off.

My own mother voted for BHO, and I love that woman more than my own life, so I cannot blame her.

His election was the inescapable conclusion that the Long March through the Institutions promised us. Utopian socialism is the romancing bad boy who speaks to the heart, whose embrace is enticing, even when you heard that he has repeatedly beat his other wives to to a pulp after the marriage vows were said. "This time it will be different; I can change him."

I don't know the outcome here. We have promised money that we cannot possibly pay. We have beggared ourselves and our children, and their children, and theirs. But it is quite possibly the end of the American Experiment.

French author Jean- François Revel described this descent in 1983's How Democracies Perish.Said he: "Democracy may, after all, turn out to have been a historical accident, a brief parenthesis that is closing before our eyes. ...But democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's right to oppose and criticize the system. Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can even receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract. The frontier is vague, the transition easy between the status of a loyal opponent wielding a privilege built into democratic institutions and that of an adversary subverting those institutions. To totalitarianism, an opponent is by definition subversive; democracy treats subversives as mere opponents for fear of betraying it principles."

This leads to the final stage: Acceptance That Your Nation is Over (ATYNO).

This one I will never understand.Democrats are clueless when it comes to economics. Or rather, their authentic ideas about economics are so left-wing they must be hidden carefully behind rhetorical camouflage.Once in office, the facade is dropped and we tax payers are ambushed. (Once again! - what a shock)

Obama did campaign to the right of Hillary. I preferred Obama over Hillary for that reason. Obama, the fraud. The democrats have shifted way too far left. They simply cannot be trusted.

All right, I’m a Republican and I voted for McCain. And it has been said before, by folks brighter than me, BUT I’M GLAD MCCAIN LOST. I WASN’T going to vote UNTIL he chose Palin. My Dad a “Yellow Dog Democrat” did not vote in 1972. He said he could vote for EITHER candidate, “Nixon was a crook and McGovern was crazy.” And though the reasons differed, Dad’s logic rang true with me. I was NOT going to vote for POTUS, NEITHER candidate was worth anything.

Obviously Obama was more Liberal than McGovern. And if you couldn’t see this Professor Althouse, then you were blind. Look at what he promised, more government, look what he told Joe the Plumber, “spread the wealth around,” look what he said of the people of this nation “Bitter clingers” and it’s OBVIOUS he was a Liberal, and a big-time Liberal. Thrown in Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and you complete the picture of a Progressive, Rich American Liberal ashamed of his nation and determined to “fix” it.

McCain, McCain was no better, in his own wretched way. Mr. Moderate, Mr. Maverick, Mr. Reach Across the Aisle, Reason Magazine, before Postrel left, pointed out that “honourable men with no ideology” (Bush ’41 and McCain)were as bad as DISHONOURABLE men with no ideology (Clinton). McCain “believed” in government….Bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform, campaigning in 2000 on keeping the money in DC and “paying down the debt”, rather than giving tax cuts (Sure John, DC politicians with a few billion extra will pay down the debt, rather than more Pork, WHEN HAS THAT HAPPENED?),. The Good and the Wise needed to run this nation, there was too much free speech and money on politics, the People had too much money, the DC politicians needed to be saved from this speech and money so they could run this nation, better, free from the “corruption” of speech and money.

It never occurred to McCain that all that money in DC was there because DC was too big and too powerful. And that if you wanted big money out of politics you needed to make politics SMALL. That never occurred to Mr. “Crankypants.”

So I felt NEITHER candidate deserved my vote. But Palin changed that. So I voted, for McCain. But I tell you I am glad he lost. Had he won, we’d have “Health Care Reform” and Higher Taxes, and Bigger Government and more Regulation. Mr. Do the Right Thing, Mr. Get the Job Done, Mr. Reach Across the Aisle would have cooperated with Reid and Pelosi and we’d have just LESS BAD versions of everything we have now. Only there’d be no political opposition. The GOP would go with “their’ POTUS. Who would be there to take over Pelosi’s or Reid’s jobs in November? Would there be a “Ryan Plan” for Entitlement Reform? No, there’d be just a dispirited rump opposition to all the things that McCain, Pelosi and Reid had wrought. And very little chance that any of it could be repealed, unlike today.

Althouse: I agree with your reasons #3 and #4. If McCain had been elected, his first priority would have been to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, and unlike Obama he would probably have succeeded since he'd have brought a few Republicans along. McCain would have "reached across the aisle" to pass other legislation beloved of Dems too, like cap and trade. It would have been more of what conservatives were stuck with under Bush: A supposedly conservative president governing like a liberal, with the result that his failed liberal policies become associated with conservatism.

However, disagree with reasons #1 and $2. There was no evidence during the campaign that Obama understood economics better than McCain (remember "spreading the wealth around"?). Re: the selection of Palin, while that may have undercut McCain's experience argument somewhat, it's not fair to say he lost the ability to make that argument completely, as it was very unlikely that Palin would be called upon to take over for McCain on day one, before she'd accumulated a good deal of experience as VP.

"French author Jean- François Revel described this descent in 1983's How Democracies Perish.Said he: "Democracy may, after all, turn out to have been a historical accident, a brief parenthesis that is closing before our eyes..."

This reads like what happened in the Dem primary in '08..

I give props to the Republicans. McCain was not liked (to put it mildly) by many of you but your party never tried to subvert the primary process and take nomination away from him. You played by your rules and I do like that.

Ann: I remember your talking about what a beautiful family the Obamas were, etc.... You were definitely taken in by the charisma and charm of this man.

1. Obama was at least as ignorant as McCain on economics. He just didn't advertise the fact as did McCain.

2. Obama's pick for VP, Joe Biden, is a court jester.

3. Obama revealed himself in the campaign as someone who was ready to represent himself as a moderate to win votes while he was, in fact, far to the left of the mainstream of America. This was a good strategy for him. But was it principled?

I was no big fan of McCain. I though we deserved better than either of them. At least MeCain seems to like America and Americans. Obama sees the worst in us and is determined to change us in his image.

In the end, Obama may have been the better choice. As he makes a complete mess of our country, it will give people an opportunity to see the fatal flaws of his ‘collectivist’ / ‘social justice’ ideas. People will understand that, in the real world, these plans just make the average person poorer and less free, while making the politically connected and powerful - richer and more powerful.

And please don't climb on the cross and pretend that you are being asked to apologize for your 2008 vote. That is your right to make whatever decision you want. But you could have kept it to yourself. You didn't. Very publicly. So suffer the slings and arrows, regain some credibility and drop the defensiveness. You are better than this.

Fen 8:53I'm sorry Ann. I love you because you Champion free speech. You let me say anything I want here. But the real reason you voted for Obama is the same reason you ban only one kind of racial slur.

Fen's comment above bares repeating again because his analysis probably holds true for so many who voted in the last election. Unfortunate because failure may then be attributed by some to racial factors rather than the limitations of a specific man.

Ok Professor, I read your reasons, and aree that you were clear, but I'm still confused.

1. [McCain] did not understand economics, the most important issue.

What made you think Obama did?

I think it's unfair to criticize you based on Obama's after-the-fact demonstration of his economic illiteracy, but seriously was it just McCain's remark that he didn't understand? Obama never demonstrated a better grasp, so I think your reasoning here is incomplete.

2. He lost the ability to make the experience argument [when he picked Sarah Palin for VP].

So the Repub VP candidate had at least as much experience as the Dem Presidential candidate, but that isn't enough for you? This argument might be clear, but it doesn't make sense. If that makes sense.

3. He never defined himself as a principled conservative.

So you choose his opponent who is a principled leftist? I guess this is only clear in a Dungeons and Dragons sort of Lawful/Chaotic sort of way.

4. Erratic and incoherent, he lacked sufficient mental capacity.

Again, I won't be unfair and use Obama's after-the-fact demonstration of limited mental capacity against you. But what made you think he possessed superior mental capacity to McCain?

Also, if VP picks played such an important role in your decision, I would think Joe Biden's mental capacity would have much the same effect here as Sarah Palin did previously.

Your explanation isn't as clear as you think it is. It does make sense, but ultimately just comes across as poor reasoning. I'd have to agree with others that, when examining your choice in a slightly larger context of both candidates examined through the same critical lens, your choice appears to have been emotionally driven.

Prof; have to admire you serving up the "softballs" for your commenters to "hit out of the park". I won't rehash and respond to your four points, Allen has already done an admirable job.

I'm a moderate and I voted for McCain and I would do it again. Would he have been a better president? Who knows because it really is the combination of the person and the situation at the time. Having said that, there were some pretty obvious realities of the two candidates:-experience in Washington. I take that as a positive; you have to work in that system. Our president still demonstrates the skill with the House and Senate that you'd expect from one term, four year and two year full-campaign mode senator.-basic ideological approach. Our president has attempted to "appear" more moderate but you really get a feeling that his heart just isn't in it. His sensibilities are tried and true old time liberal. And that fits his brief political history. As for McCain, over the years he's been a fairly consistent conservative. I'm moderate. I appreciated that he wasn't afraid to talk to the other side.-bipartisan. Yes I think that's important. Again I never saw anything in BO's past that suggested he had that skill. He still doesn't. You don't meet with Republican Senators in the morning and then bash Republicans in the evening. His "just words" speech (though plagiarized) revealed much about the man. His bipartisan words have as much power as the six year old who says "I said 'I was sorry'!"-campaigns mean little. They are the political equivalent of movie previews.

Having said all of that, 2008 is ancient history. Move on

PS And as for the VP selection. Vice Presidents are irrelevant, in spite of recent attempts to make them so. They are more "useful sound machines" than administrative tools. Or to use Mr. Garner's (presumed real) quote, the position is a warm bucket of piss

wv: saintly.Not something to look for or expect in a Presidential candidate

As I mentioned, this is the best, open, blog. Yet, there is one difference - the Obama/Biden Administration will be here till Jan. 2016 - where I disagree with other commenters. It is over for GOP. After Obama/Biden, expect others in the 2nd term to follow (i.e., 2012-16). Face it, it is over for the GOP - the party which has no core leadership, no vision, no discipline, no scholarship, no nothing.

2. It is true that Ann makes a pretty good case against McCain, but not the case for Obama. It is the case for Obama where she has no good explanation and, in hindsight, the rational people in the country will ask how did that happen?

3. I thought Ann made a great and valid hindsight point:

"Obviously, not [Obama is not a more principled conservative], but we are now given a great opportunity to make the distinctions and get conservatives to define and promote conservatism. We're getting some clarity. Fast. I like that. The Democrats are making it clear what they stand for and how they do things. If McCain were in there, getting along with Congress, it would all be a big mush."

But then pm317 responds with a pretty good argument:

"Oh, Ann, Ann. Clarity at what cost?! Another rationalization. Trying to find a silver lining where there is none."

On balance, I think Ann is correct. With McCain as president, the press would have absolutely killed him by now and the democrats would be poised to increase their majorities.

So, if we can limp through two more years of Obama without him causing significant permanent damage, then his election might overall be an inexplicable, but good thing. Unfortunately, I think the chance of that is no better than 50/50. One problem with this positive view is Obama will place at least two far left votes on the Supreme Court.

This is beside the point, but something that has surprised me about Obama is that he has such a self entitlement personality. He plays golf, vacations, puts on grand White House balls and otherwise lives big with no apparent reticense, despite the millions who lost jobs, the soldiers fighting and dying, the economy, and now the oil leak. Remarkable. The press, of course, allows it, but I think it is one of those images/perceptions that is starting to sink in with the people.

Wow Ann, something real from you rather than just a link for us to read and conclude "something".I started reading this blog when you said you were going to vote for Obama, most of the other people I read started as conservatives,-Andrew Sullivan, John Cole and morphed into something more. I appreciate the fact that you have not backed away from your vote. Most of the yes, but retorts here are media narratives-like Obama hates America, he's a communist, Palin is more experienced, Obambi is in over his head. I think you voted for Obama because he really is more conservative in form and function.It is easier to swallow the idea that he is a hideous, country-hating asshole if you dont want him to be successful. I am really happy with my vote and so is most of the country [54% approval rating], get out of the echo chamber sometime and you will see that your view is very much in the minority if you are a hater.

Liberals always bristle when caught with poor reasoning and asked to explain...because they know the criticism is dead on...They also excel in telling you why the other guy sucks...not so much what's good about their guy...case in point

This prattle about "cult of personality" I sometimes think is over-stated for many of us who voted for Obama as in my case for the following reasons: 1. Frankly when McCain picked Palin as his VP he disqualified himself from serious consideration. 2.The country was dead ending into major financial crisis, and to continue with the same leadership seemed unwise. 3. Many on the "progressive" left said that we would vote for Obama because we wanted health care reform etc., but would hold his feet to the fire to back up his promises . And therefore criticism of Obama over policy choices is fair game, but this prattle about "cult of personality" or country of birth is jive.

"One of the hardest things for most of us to admit is when we are wrong. Maybe, your evaluation and analysis were just incorrect. Maybe, millions of Obama supporters were caught up in a mania and didn't realize it."

Ann,

You know (or should know) I'm not here to bury you but I can't stand it - you've been pulling this shit for too long:

I'm sorry, but you're lying and/or deceiving yourself. I've seen this more times than I can count: once someone in a cult gets called on their beliefs, they resort to spinning like a dervish.

Anyone can see through these lame excuses - voting for the most liberal candidate because the other wasn't conservative enough - especially after you've followed that vote with post after race-based post. Admit it, Darlin': they've GOT you.

It honestly breaks my heart to see such dishonesty, on your part, in the service of your image and nothing more. What do you think will happen if you admit the truth? That we'll hate you? No - you gain our respect, not the other way around. Keeping this charade going is how you lose it - and appear to be losing your mind. Your excuses make no sense, because, between McCain and Obama, only one candidate was clear in his love for this country. Add in Palin and there was no doubt. But Obama? With his terrorist buddies, Communists, race-baiters? Puh-Leaze.

Ann, you're too old to treat us this way. Be honest, with us and yourself. That's what adults do.

Or you can stay that self-deceiving hippie chick you're so proud of, thinking we'll all be fooled because of that glowing smile in the photo. We're not.

You fell for the cult and admitted it before - it's time to admit it again. Not for us but for yourself. Accept it:

You fell for a political cult. I'm about as versed in this subject as a person can be, and anyone who votes for a guy who promises to lower the oceans, and heal the planet, is all the proof I need.

My opinion on all this probably isn't too important, but it's based upon 15 odd years as a "Fed" (Army civilian) out of my military and private sector civilian career years of 50 some years.

From my perspective it matters little who we elect as POTUS. Whomever it is will immediately fill their Departments and West Wing Staffs with institutionalized Washington DC wonk habituates.

Which ilk of wonk depends upon the elected POTUS...but don't kid anyone, it is a revolving door of re-treaded wonks who never really leave the trough unless a good temporary conflict of interest job comes there way for a while.

Below the Secretariat level the SES staffs, all "appointees", in various Departments pretty much stay the same. These folk know how to go along to get along, and usually have nearly no technical expertise in their fields. However their "suction" capability is unrivaled, even by Hoover or Kirby.

Civil Servants GS-15 and below are more likely to know something, but they generally do not set policy, and procedure is often subject to review and dictation by know-nothings above them.

The POTUS...he gets the information his wonks think he needs or want him to have, which is why any President at times appears behind the curve...they're put there.

Yep, I'm cynical. Is there a solution? I have no idea anymore. I do know the "revolving door" will continue. Departments will periodically "re-organize"...it looks like a solution to this or that, but isn't....the deck is just shuffled.

My two cents worth. You got it. Probably worth every penny you paid for it. Bwahahahahaha.

but this prattle about "cult of personality" or country of birth is jive.

Really? You didn't notice the neo-Stalinist iconography that dominated the Obama campaign? The fact that news photographers repeatedly shoot Obama with the presidential seal behind him so it looks like a halo? The elaborate totalitarian staging of his campaign rallies?

What would it take to have a "cult of personality", if none of this counts?

The Zero was on record with statements such as calling private enterprise and free markets the enemy and wanting things like $8 a gallon gasoline.

Anyone who knew Halo Joe's record knew what a corrupt fool he was. Mrs. Palin had shown ability and integrity in her work and, granted it's hindsight, an ability to articulate the issues.

So, I think 1 & 2, then and now, were a crock, I'll give you 3, no problem, but I don't think a Naval Academy graduate "lacks sufficient mental capacity" (you can say his message was badly managed and I'll agree); The Zero's lack of acuity was brought up, but too few people were seeing him as a Messiah to want to listen, so I can't agree with you on 4.

If you're center-left politically, that's who you are. I think your instincts were always toward Obama (the creamy hippie love chick thing) and your vote is yours to cast. As I've said before, I have less against you for your vote than I do all the 'conservatives' who stayed home rather than soil their patties voting for McCain figuring that The Messiah would screw up the country so badly that the Lefties would be driven from power eventually (and it may happen, but at what a cost).

New said...

As I mentioned, this is the best, open, blog. Yet, there is one difference - the Obama/Biden Administration will be here till Jan. 2016 - where I disagree with other commenters. It is over for GOP.

Wishful thinking?

The last month has brought 3 issues The Zero has blown - Arizona immigration, the oil spill, and the Sestak mess. Democrats can only win by distancing themselves from him; after all, if The Zero has lost Chrissy Mathews' tingle... - and we haven't had another financial swoon (but it's getting close) or a successful terrorist attack yet (closer). If by the Republicans, you mean the Michael Steele party, you might be right.

The issue is people just aren't going with the establishment candidates, the old guard is being tossed out, and who the Republicans nominate in '12 may not be on the radar yet.

But, your original reasons were all decent rationalizations, but, ultimately, they were just that.

I can't add a lot to what the posters have said here, except that Obama's rise has given us the stark contrast perhaps we need, as voters, to put this country back on track and demonstrate to the Marxists/Statists that this is not America.

If we can't do that in November 2010, then perhaps your vote (and support) was not so stupid after all.

Sorry. You would think so in theory, but that is not the way it is in practice.

In practice, the bureaucracy is infested, top to bottom, with pro-government libs, and it is they who do the actual hiring, not the Administration in power. In this way, the pro-government lib bureaucracy self-perpetuates itself, never really changing no matter who is president.

The federal government bureaucracy is no different from academia or the media.

I think people wanted to vote for Obama because it felt good to them. So they decided to vote for him and worked backwards to come up with reasons. But that's just what I think, I can't get in another person's mind. I think that way at least in part because I watched it in myself. Most people were sick of Bush and it seemed inevitable that we'd elect a democrat.

I didn't vote for Obama because there were too many creepy things out there about him and I just couldn't get there. But even after he was elected I hoped for him to be a sort of democratic Reagan with a strong foreign policy. It seemed to me that electing him would at least heal some racial wounds in the country and I hoped the dems - the Podestas, Clintons, etc - would help him stay out of the ditch.

Now here we are. Obama looks like the worst president of my lifetime - Jimmy Carter is the big winner of the last 2 years. Obama makes Dems look worse than they did on national security and foreign policy and he's nationalized health care. And God only knows how much permanent damage he's doing to race relations in the country.

(Ick. Google ID is taking over the world. Formerly I was DaveW, I'll try to figure out how to fix that.)

Ann: I remember your talking about what a beautiful family the Obamas were, etc....

There are much better examples of Althouse succumbing to Obama cultism than that. Check out Althouse's blog entry responding to Obama's "race speech" (the one where he said he could no more renounce the racist Rev Wright than his own grandmother). She declared that speech was so fantastic, it might still be assigned reading for school children three centuries from now... even if Obama was not elected!

""The entire plan to bring Obama into office depended on the glorification of the man, whose actual experience was so bizarrely limited that it took some nerve to claim to be ready. Magic was required. The cult grew up not as he held power and needed to respond to a crisis. The cult was the campaign to bring him into power. It depended on our projecting all sorts of hopes and dreams onto him, and he knew it. Inside, he may have felt embarrassed by the whole enterprise, but he'd figured out that it could work, and he was right."

Obama was instant redemption; the one chance ever for all white "progressive" thinkers to purge themselves of Shelby Steeles' described "White Guilt" and expiate all their racist sins via a single feel-good vote. It was the irresistible allure of "The Magic Negro. " Althouse and those like her hit the hook like a starving 90lb Muskie going full-tilt boogie.

Expanding on [2], it seems to me that executive experience, of which Palin at least had some should trump legislative experience, of which Obama had not much more.

Can I ask whether you've ever been to Alaska, Professor? It's an amazing state, with tremendous extremes. Being the successful governor of that rates bonus points in my book.

Expanding on [3], can I ask you, Professor, to define what the phrase "principled conservative" means to you? There's a line in Princess Bride that comes to mind. (Just substitute the phrase "principled conservative" for the word that Wallace Shawn keeps saying.)

At any rate, as AllenS and EnigmatiCore have pointed out upthread, there was little chance that Obama would be conservative in any way or shape or form. And it was not hard to discover that neither was he particularly principled.

As for [4], you needed to ask yourself whether you had enough evidence to make a decision about whether Obama would also be erratic and incoherent under pressure? AllenS made the same point, I think, but in a different way.

I must say that Obama's response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been steady: "if I ignore it maybe it will go away." But coherence is not what comes to mind as far as his performance on this problem is concerned.

And you overlooked the single major point when choosing a president. It's the word "integrity." Only the furthest left of the left-wing lunatic fringe would suggest that Obama has ever demonstrated any. And I argue that McCain has demonstrated it amply over the years.

A.Althouse wrote: " "How McCain Lost Me." The bottom line was:"1. [McCain] did not understand economics, the most important issue."

Obama even less so than McCain, dear lady. Obama thinks government actually produces something; he thinks a country can function without a private sector and that when you're in debt you can get out of it by spending what you don't have. McCain had the balls to say he didn't get economics. Obama knows he doesn't know and none of the idiots who are on his team, Keynesians all, know a thing either.

"2. He lost the ability to make the experience argument [when he picked Sarah Palin for VP]."Totally hilarious, ma'am. Palin was the only experienced person of the four. Stop reading the NYTimes and read Palin's record of achievement.

"3. He never defined himself as a principled conservative."Obama never defined himself as a rabid socialist ideologue either, did he? Yet he is.

"4. Erratic and incoherent, he lacked sufficient mental capacity."You fell in love with the teleprompter, just admit it Althouse. You didn't realize that Obama is a blitherin' idiot without it.

You should not have reposted your reasons, dear lady. They make a statement that is somewhat critical of your intellectual capacity.

1) Obama demonstrated understanding of economics? a howler. 2) McCain should have picked someone with decades of experience? then he would have been accused of making himself redundant. 3) So if the conservative doesn't define himself as principled, vote for the liberal? that makes zero sense. 4) McCain was "erratic and incoherent"? Ann, you're projecting. Your itemized 1-4 -- in all their randomness and incoherence -- simply outline your particular form of giddy emotionalism.

So they don't try to take over practically every aspect of the economy and private life, doing nothing except to screw it all up with their government "expertise," either by disasterous action themselves or by totally abdicating any responsibility for action themselves by thinking that, by keeping their boot on someone's neck, the government is accomplishing anything.

The Monday morning quarterbacks here are so right about Obama that one wonders why they did not bark louder while the Commander-in-thief was still outside the whitehouse door. That was McCain's campaign guys job to do. Those guys failed and also muzzled Palin for doing their jobs for them, and later orchestrated a secret leak defamation of Palin league later. Many of the expert commenters here today are still crowing about Palin as Vice President being a disqualifier for McCain as a President in 2008. Frankly, that is grade B propaganda. Get serious.

Actually we can somewhat imagine what a McCain presidency would have looked like compared to this President. McCain wouldn't have signed the stimulus or health care bills, wouldn't have nominated Sotomayor or Kagan, wouldn't have gone around the world apologizing for America, abandoned missile defense in eastern Europe, etc. And the press would be howling mad and tearing at his every move.

Anyway, you should probably expect more of this sort of criticism, which may be unfair because of course your one vote didn't push Obama over the top. You should adopt the Never Complain, Never Explain approach, meaning don't complain when others criticize you for your Obama vote and don't try to justify it after the fact. It just makes you look defensive.

That's not the important part - it ignores that she knew it was a cult - and even that doesn't excuse the fact she admits he went along with a lie.

This is why cultism is so prevalent in our society: too many, such as yourself, are willing to give cover. She admitted it - deal with it - and force her to deal with it. She's lying. Either she was lying when she wrote her Barack is a cultist post, or she's lying now, but either way she's lying.

I don't think Obama hates America, but I do think what the voters elected (both moderate Democrats and independents) was more of the concept of Barack Obama than the man himself.

It's really no different than the 1989 New York City mayoral election, when Democratic primary voters nominated David Dinkins over Ed Koch, and then elected him over Rudy Giuliani. Dinkins promised to turn New York into "A Gorgeous Mosaic" which was just his own version of Hope and Change. And people voted for Dinkins because he was an educated, non-threatening (i.e. not Al Sharpton) African American who voters wanted to believe could create the Gorgeous Mosaic he promised. Instead, his laid-back non-threatening personality created a chief executive who was easily rolled by his more vocal special interest supporters, and seemed more interested in minor details of power (such as rerouting LaGuardia take-offs away from the Arthur Ashe Tennis Center so he could enjoy the U.S. Open without jet engine noise) than he was in actually doing the tough parts of governing, including saying 'no' to his special interest groups.

Obama's pretty much the same personality in a younger, more appealing package. People voted for him because he was an educated, non-threatening (i.e. not Al Sharpton) African American who voters wanted to believe could create the Hope and Change he promised. Instead, his laid-back non-threatening personality created a chief executive who was easily rolled by his more vocal special interest supporters, and seemed more interested in minor details of power (such as disrupting New York City traffic so he and Michelle can have a one-night fly-in, fly-out dinner in the city) than he was in actually doing the tough parts of governing, including saying 'no' to his special interest groups.

There are other similarities, including failing to really deal with the quality of life issues voters elected him to change, and failing to contain the worst instincts of his more liberal advisers and ending up with the major backlash from Jewish Democratic donors. And as liberal as New York City voters are, enough were alienated by Dinkins by 1993 to allow Giuliani to win the rematch, despite race cards aplenty being thrown at the Republican candidate (centered on a City Hall rally or NYC police officers Rudy spoke to early in the campaign). I have no doubt 2012 will play out in pretty similar fashion on the national level and probably be a pretty close race, albeit without the factor of Obama facing a rematch against his 2008 presidential opponent (though I wouldn't bet the house yet on him not ending up in a rematch with the '08 VP nominee).

I think people should take a look at the sad state of the Economy, suspend their harping on Ann, and fly to DC to do nothing. That will certainly make me think more of them.

I find a nice parallelism in the reasons McCain was not voted for and the reason that Kerry was not voted for. It seems obvious to me that Althouse's votes (like mine) are frequently a lesser of two evils as discerned at some point in time. After the vote, there's not much to do but try to make the best of the collective decision.

"It depended on our projecting all sorts of hopes and dreams onto him... And I like to think that, now that he's President, with his steely nerve, his intelligence, and his groundedness, he'll do the job that must be done."

He had a whole lot of people snowed into thinking they were in on the scam, when in fact the whole point of the scam was to get them to think just that.

People seem to forget what an awful candidate and potential president McCain was. Yes, Obama has turned out worse than expected but that's partly because of the massive Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate. And why did they get those? Bush and McCain.

McCain wanted Joe Lieberman as his VP - Palin was picked at the last minute when McCain's staff lost their nerve. Let me repeat, McCain wanted Al Gore's VP and his VP. Some conservative.

As others have stated, McCain would have given us Amnesty, and 75 percent of Obama's health care, deficits and bailouts. People would be unhappy with the Reid/Pelosi/McCain governance, and would be blaming Republicans.

But Don't worry moderate Republicans, the establishment is lining up for Romney in 2012, so you'll still get your McCain like Presidency.

And let's not leave out Glenn Reynolds, pumping Ann and Megan as voices of rationality, when they can't tell the truth. I may be overbearing but I tell the truth - which, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "is no vice" - but I'm beyond the pale for the Instapundit.

@Crack@ 10:51...I agree with your clear and cogent comment made from your experience in fighting against the profusion of magic-cults. Can I add that the proud abandonment of respect for Christian faith after Darwin, Freud, and Jung were granted "Scientific Status" in Academia is what opened the door for this profusion of cults to push their way back in. And by chance all of these cults seem to agree on the need for immediate elimination of Jews in power in Israel, just as The Obama/Farrakhan/Haman axis of Peace does.

Ann, I Love you, but the reasoning you offer for your vote is even more disappointing than if you fell for the hype. Regardless, you did still fall for it since your reasoning amounts to: McCain has these weaknesses and I'll assume the unknown guy does not.

This was a big part of the hype and the lifelong purpose of voting present, hiding transcripts, answering all questions with both sides of the argument, etc.

You need to ask yourself: Were you really voting based on this weak reasoning or were you using it for cover. The hardest thing for an academic to admit is their reliance on mythology. That's for the rubes. There is always required some reference to reason and that veil can never be abandoned. Even law professors are human. It's OK.

J Lee, interesting comparison between Dinkins in '89 and Obama in '08. Gotta disagree on one point, though: if 2012 plays out like the '93 NYC Mayoral election on a national stage, Obama loses big. Very big. After all, you're talking about an electorate with high percentages of minorities and liberals choosing Rudy Giuliani. Take your formula and run it with a more likable GOP candidate in the country at large. A bloodbath.

I know - that's why I've lost no respect for Christian values - just the faith. Christians have been on the front lines of this battle but, in my opinion, for the wrong reasons. Jesus shouldn't need a defense - he's Jesus, remember? - like people in Oakland, CA., defending that city, it's only because there's no "there" there, that so many Christians are engaged: they know better, too.

I'm sorry, my dear friend, but I can't join in your "faith" - it's over. But your values are spot on, and I'm with you 100%.

Crack- "But did you doubt - for even a second - that he and Palin loved this country?"

The problem I have with this type of argument is that the right makes it all the damn time about liberals, and it simply does not ring true to a whole lot of people (I am guessing, to most people).

I have heard it about nearly every Democrat of any significance. It is a fallacy to think that agents of change by necessity hate the object of their efforts. I work to try to change my kids, to make them better. Do I hate them?

With Obama, and his relationships with Ayers and Wright, it was an argument that could have resonated, excepting that people long ago figured out that conservatives are always going to claim that about liberals, just like liberals are always going to claim conservatives are fascists.

Well, we are not free from the damage this President has done and will do. Enormous effort has to be made in order for that to happen. (Part of why the Tea Party protesters will forever be my heroes) So his voters still haven't seen the full effect of their choices.

I hope the "pragmatism" of thinking that this disastrous presidency will swing politics and policy back closer to where they should be is correct. I have no idea. I'm pretty worried it won't.

I'd hate to have voted for Obama for these reasons. I remember feeling duped by Clinton after I voted once for him. I'm still embarrassed to admit it. I doubt it's anything close to what it will feel to have been an Obama voter. I'm not trying to be shitty here. I really think it's going to be a painful voting memory for some.

Jon said... "There are much better examples of Althouse succumbing to Obama cultism than that. Check out Althouse's blog entry responding to Obama's "race speech" (the one where he said he could no more renounce the racist Rev Wright than his own grandmother). She declared that speech was so fantastic, it might still be assigned reading for school children three centuries from now... even if Obama was not elected!"

Link to the post where you think I said that speech was so fantastic. I think this is my main post about the speech, and it's not very complimentary.

Obama understands economics? A more important question was what sort of economics did he favor? It was painfully clear that he was a redistributionist. He explicitly said so, and those are the "economics" he has engaged in, paying off political allies at the expense of productive sectors.

2. He lost the ability to make the experience argument [when he picked Sarah Palin for VP].

The selection of Palin boosted him in the polls by at least five points. You see, Palin is a true conservative (See Althouse cavil #3) Two years later she is perhaps the most effective spokesman for conservatism on the scene.

3. He never defined himself as a principled conservative.

Did Obama? Haven't you ever wised up to the fact that every election is the choice of a lesser evil? You made the perfect the enemy of the good.

4. Erratic and incoherent, he lacked sufficient mental capacity.

The Saturday Night Live argument. Please. Same argument used against Reagan.

You got sucked in by charisma, Althouse, admit it. You should be apologizing to those of us who got it right.

"I think Americans will study Barack Obama's speech 100 years from now, maybe even 300 years from now, whether he becomes President or not. At the very least it was a good speech, yet 49% would not even concede that."

Challenge: Without looking back at that speech (i.e. from memory), quote any line or concept from it that caused you think it was so awesome.

"Obviously, not, but we are now given a great opportunity to make the distinctions and get conservatives to define and promote conservatism. We're getting some clarity. Fast. I like that. The Democrats are making it clear what they stand for and how they do things. If McCain were in there, getting along with Congress, it would all be a big mush."

Isn't this an appeal to "creative destruction"? See how much more productive we'll be after Obama breaks a bunch of stuff? We'll be so productive trying to just get it back to its previous state!

Of course, hypothetically, it's nice to have a cleansing period where everyone is forced to identify their true beliefs. Unfortunately, in the real world, this only leads to significant pain for everyone involved.

By the way, I think Ann is engaging in a little revisionist history - "see, I knew he was going to be such a no-talent-assclown and THAT'S why I voted for him. 'Cause he would set it up so that real conservatives would come to power."

How much are you going to hate yourself if Sarah Palin somehow beats Obama because people now want a "principled conservative"?

Okay, I found the post where I talk about kids studying the speech in the future. Responding to a Rasmussen poll in which only 51% of Americans found it excellent or good, I said: "Even people who are deeply disturbed by Obama's connection to Wright and think he should have simply and clearly denounced the man should still think it was an 'excellent.' 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' is a excellent speech: We study it 300+ years after it was delivered, but we're not buying the message. I think Americans will study Barack Obama's speech 100 years from now, maybe even 300 years from now, whether he becomes President or not. At the very least it was a good speech, yet 49% would not even concede that." I'm commenting on the historical significance of the speech there, not getting snowed by it.

I, too, would defend my SO - but then, I'd set her down and say, "Honey, come on - no one's out to hurt you. Admit the truth. You fell for a scam. They're all hurting because of it - and you look silly, and/or deceptive. Tell the truth."

"but given the quality of the writing and delivery, the press response to the speech, and the question itself, the answer should be "excellent.""

Sounds like you were pretty darned impressed with the speech, even if one writes off "I think Americans will study Barack Obama's speech 100 years from now, maybe even 300 years from now, whether he becomes President or not" as being merely about the perceived historical importance of the speech.

Hell, just the fact that one would immediately start pondering the historical significance of a speech, with the answer being anything beyond "none", is a tacit admission that the one opining got a tingle up their leg, just like Chris Matthews.

My point about studying the speech is that it's historically significant. The first black major-party candidate faces defeat because of something having to do with race and he has to work his way through the problem plausible. How does he do it without losing some of his supporters? He aligned with Wright for a reason, and now Wright is inconvenient, but he can't just throw Wright under the bus. He must use rhetoric. What does he do? How well does he do it? Etc. etc. It's an important object of study. Sorry but that is indisputable. You need to tell the difference between observation and agreement.

commenting on the historical significance is getting snowed by it. Not as it is significant for understanding the campaign of 2008, but thinking it is something historical as comparable to Sinners in the Hands of the Angry God.

I also don't think there's any better example of the underlying reasons behind "the glass ceiling" as rejecting McCain because of Palin's lack of experience and voting for Obama instead.

I do appreciate people who lay out their reasons for choice (even though I am pretty much on Allen S's side in his critique); and I am inclinded to accept their reasons, even if I think they might not have been the ones I would have chosen. Hindsight is usually better after the fact.

Thats the way it looked to one person in November 2008. I dont see where rehashing one decision adds much to the conversation. IMO. Mr Obama is now the president and the country has November coming up to rein him in. Balls in our court now, America, and we can start thinking about our reasons for 2010.

When people tell me I'm wrong, they never mention what a blessing my intellect is to public discourse. Rude bastards......I agree that Obama has not yet been a calamity, but his Presidency is still young. I was hoping that some of his good luck would rub off on America. That's been partially true. The failed terrorist attacks were a matter of luck. However, this gulf spill happened three weeks after he decided to rethink the prudence of deep sea oil drilling. Such pronouncements are more unlucky than stupid and don't bode well for the future. Luck was the big thing that Obama had going for him and that mojo is no longer rising.

Blake - I'm all for a libertarian POTUS and would gladly support one. I think the loosely affiliated Tea Party movement has done the right thing in avoiding social issues. I wish and hope and dream that will continue.

Unfortunately, I just cannot believe it will. 'Cause when the rubber hits the road, social issues are always there.

Let me give you an example: Illegal immigration, for me, is an economic issue as much as anything else. We cannot have a social welfare state and open borders. It will not work.

Progressive Democrats will not fight on that point though. Instead, they will fight on social grounds and we will be forced to defend it on social grounds. Squishy moderates like Althouse will not want to vote for a hard-charging libertarian like Rand Paul when it comes time to vote for or against "interning poor brown people" (the Progressive straw man, not what I believe).

I'm married to an Althousian. She gave me almost the exact same arguments in support of her vote for Obama and Biden. She claims she would love a "principled conservative" but, as strong pro-choice person, when she enters that ballot box her vote is almost always for the pro-choice candidate.

Ann is great, but here, she has not responded well on what was the case to vote for Obama (not the reason to vote against McCain) and on the "race speech." There was nothing in that speech of significance a year later, let alone 100 years later. The media just grabbed it as a way to promote their favored candidate. Ann was suckered in.

Professor, I have two questions for you. First, do you believe that you made a mistake in voting for Obama? If not, then the follow-on question is to ask what you find to agree with in the first 16 months of his presidency.

If you do believe that voting for Obama was a mistake, then the follow-on question is whether you have gone back to analyze your decision-making process, to see what you can learn from your mistake.

And, side question, which post by blake "nailed it"? IMHO both the 11:52 and the 11:56 post are accurate.

I've never even heard of, much less read, that sermon by Jonathan Edwards.

I've just read for the first time (OK, maybe the second time -- if I've read it before, it was completely unmemorable) Obama's race speech -- given during the Democrat primary season and in the wake of Bill Clinton et al. trying to fan the flames of race during the primaries.

Now, I say "Obama's race speech," but having since heard him speak extemporaneously in such a disasterous fashion that he has long been in need of a corpseman, it is clear to everyone that the only contribution that President Teleprompter makes to these speeches is his head-swivelling tennis-match delivery. (Can anyone seriously contend that these words came forth from Obama's own brain -- "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam"?)

However, it is also clear that the speech did include Obama's thugocratic ideology: "What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part -- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk -- to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time."

An interesting set of priorities, there, as he speaks of promoting civil rights, not by peaceful persuasion, but by force, by putting the boot to the necks of his opponents.

It is telling of who Obama is (and he did make his hard left ideology very well known during the campaign), but if this speech is studied at all, rather than going into the dust-bin of history, it will be studied for showing what a total load of crap Obama is and has always been, and how he always manages to insult the intelligence of his listeners in almost every speech.

If the whole thing is studied in the future, it will almost certainly be the first time that anyone has listened or read all the way to the end because, upon it's original delivery, everyone tuned out in disbelief once he claimed to not know anything about this guy he's been intimately attached to for 20 years.

----------

I voted for Obama in the primary, knowing full well what a disater he is, in order to destroy the enormous danger of the resurgence of Clintonism.

But come general election time, I voted for the Palin ticket, knowing that a President McCain would be a disaster half the time, but that was a hell of a lot better than the total disaster that a President Obama would be.

When Obama prevailed, I understood that America had voted for national suicide. Since then, President "I won" has not surprised or disappointed one bit. He is as bad as was expected. But perhaps good can be brought out of evil, perhaps he is so bad, and his fellow Dems so foolish as to show their true colors these last two years, that it will bring down the entire Democrat power structure, an FDR-style political shift in reverse.

"When Obama prevailed, I understood that America had voted for national suicide."

Which you had done first, but were being just too clever for yourself and not clever enough to predict that the American people would not be as clever as you were being in trying to destroy that clever but dangerous Clinton movement that American's weren't clever enough to see as the one and true danger.

Ann after reading the comments and abuse you have taken for laying out four fairly rational decision for your choice in 2008, which to be honest I agreed with, and your continued rational skepticism towards Obama, my respect for your blog writing has increased.

Yes, and there is the signature demonization by Obama, obsessed with Rush Limbaugh even back then --

"Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

"Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many."

Study this speech?? He spouts the same crap countless times every week. I suppose studying the speech might be used as a tool to punish misbehaving students, to make them go through this tortuous slop, but study it for merit or historical impact???

You understand nothing about politics. I did the exact same thing when Gavin Newsom ran for Governor of California - even though he was the gay marriage candidate (and I talked to my gay friends about it before I did it) and I wanted to support my friends - I had to get that doofus out, for the sake of the state.

Besides, it was clear that if Clintonism was ever to be defeated, it had to be the Dems themselves that did the deed. The Dems themselves needed to be the ones to repudiate Bill and Hillary. If it were left to the Republicans, the Dems would have simply circled their wagons in defense of them, and nothing would change.

In hindsight (and that of course can still change 2-3 years down the line), Obama's speech on Wright falls more into the same category as Bill and Hillary Clinton's post-Super Bowl interview with Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes", when he responded to the questions about the Gennifer Flowers allegations. Obama's race and the ensuing historical significance of his election give it a little more cache than the Clinton's piece, but honestly, between the two nobody remembers much of what either Bill or Barack said -- the most memorable thing to come out of the two pieces combined was Hillary's "baking cookies" remark. The significance for the two men actually involved was it bailed them out of what could have been candidacy-derailing situations (aided by a big media that wanted them to be bailed out of those situations).

I think it's interesting to note that higher-profile people classified as conservatives/moderates who voiced their support for Obama in 2008 seem to be having a much harder time admitting that they might have projected things onto Barack Obama that weren't there than William Safire did back in 1992-94, when he openly admitted he had made a mistake voting for Bill Clinton in '92, and was fooled into believing Clinton was something else than how he governed during his first 12-18 months in office.

Safire had the microfilm archives of The New York Times for people to check and see what he had said during the '92 campaign, but a microfilm reader isn't the Internet, and nowadays people either in the professional pundit world (Noonan, Brooks, Kathellen Parker, Christopher Buckley) or not-for-profit ones like Ann or Meagan McArdle face the problem of having everything they've published Googled and thrown back in their face -- you can't just quietly admit you were snookered by a belief in Hope and Change without a chorus of people saying "I told you so."

I actually think Noonan's doing the best job so far of the professional pundits in at least coming around to where Saifre was a year-and-a-half into Clinton's presidency, while the others seem to feel the embarrassment of admitting that Cletus from Nashville (or -- even worse -- Sarah from Wasilla) had Barack Obama pegged far better than they did sticks in their collective craws, and the reaction ranges from whipsawing between criticizing the president and trying to defend him at the same time (Brooks), to doubling down on their original remarks and obstinately trying to claim their critics are still wrong while holding out hope that Obama will eventually see the light (Coddington Van Voorhies VII).

Pre-internet, adjusting your position to fit the new realities was a lot easier on the ego, because any misjudgment didn't follow you forever (a point Noonan made in her previous column, though not mentioning her own Obama faux pax). The main question now for those who did vote for Barack in '08 and are disillusioned is: What, if anything can he do to woo you back in 2012, or how bad in your eyes would the Republican candidate have to be to get you to mark the ballot for Obama again, if everything 24 months from now is basically unchanged?